Volume 24, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


During the 2012 U.S. Presidential campaign, President Obama turned some heads by stating “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that”. His opponents argued that this was an attack on private enterprise (with “that” referring to business), while his supporters and fact-checking organizations maintained that “that” referred to what Obama was talking about previously (U.S. infrastructure) and represented his political-economic plan of an increased interlacing of private business with government investment. I argue, from a relevance-theoretic perspective, that both interpretations follow from differing contextual assumptions on the part of the audience. In this sense, the role of contextual assumptions in utterance interpretation is highlighted – different contextual assumptions lead to different cognitive effects if the utterance leaves room for more than one interpretation. Combined with a highly polarized U.S. political arena, where participants pounce on their opponent’s every possible miscue, all the ingredients for misunderstanding are present.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ariel, Mira
    (1990) Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. Bristol: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2001) Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders , J. Schliperoord , and W. Spooren (eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.29-87. doi: 10.1075/hcp.8.04ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.04ari [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, Kent
    (1992) Intentions and demonstrations. Analysis52: 40-146. doi: 10.1093/analys/52.3.140
    https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/52.3.140 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bou-Franch, Patricia
    (2002) Misunderstandings and unofficial knowledge in institutional discourse. In D. Walton , and D. Scheu (eds.), Culture and Power: Ac(unofficially) knowledging Cultural Studies in Spain. Bern: Peter Lang, pp.323-341.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Carston, Robyn
    (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2007) How many pragmatic systems are there?. In M.-J. Frappoli (ed.), Saying, Meaning, Referring: Essays on the Philosophy of François Recanati. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.18-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009) The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics1: 35-62. doi: 10.1163/187731009X455839
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455839 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carston, R. , and Alison Hall
    (2012) Implicature and explicature. In H.-J. Schmid (ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.47-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, Wallace
    (1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1996) Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In T. Fretheim , and J.K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.37-46. doi: 10.1075/pbns.38.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.38.03cha [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, Billy
    (2013) Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139034104
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  12. Furlong, Anne
    (1995) Relevance theory and Literary Interpretation. London: University College London [dissertation].
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodman, Bradley A
    (1986) Reference identification and reference identification failure. Computational Linguistics12.4: 273-305.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, Herbert Paul
    (1975) Logic and Conversation. In H.P. Cole , and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts [= Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3]. New York: Academic Press, pp.41-58. Reprinted in Paul H. Grice (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 22-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gundel, Jeanette K
    (2010) Reference and accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy perspective. International Review of Pragmatics2: 148-168. doi: 10.1163/187731010X528322
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731010X528322 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gundel, Jeanette K. , Nancy Hedberg , and Ron Zacharski
    (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69.2: 274-307. doi: 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012) Underspecification of cognitive status in reference production: Some empirical predictions. Topics in Cognitive Science4: 249-268. doi: 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2012.01184.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01184.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Hall, Alison
    (2007) Do discourse connectives encode concepts or procedures?Lingua117: 149-174. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lamb, Clarice
    (2005) Misunderstandings – a sociolinguistic view on meaning. Letras de Hoje40.1: 231-241.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Maes, Alfons , and Christ De Rooij
    (2007) (How) do demonstratives encode distance?InProceedings of DAARC 2007, Lagos Portugal. Centro de Linguistica da Universidade de Porto, pp.83-89.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mirecki, Paweł
    (2008) Misunderstandings and communication failure in Relevance theory – a problem revisited. In E. Mioduszewska , and A. Piskorska (eds.), Relevance Round Table I, pp.77-85.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    (2012) Epistemic vigilance, cautious optimism and sophisticated understanding. Research in Language10.4: 365-386. doi: 10.2478/v10015‑011‑0040‑y
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0040-y [Google Scholar]
  23. Recanati, François
    (2004) Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Scott, Kate
    (2013)  This and that: a procedural analysis. Lingua131: 49-65. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    (1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua90: 1-25. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1995²) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2004) Relevance theory. In L.R. Horn , and G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.607-632.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2005) Pragmatics. In F. Jackson , and M. Smith (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.468-501. Reprinted in D. Sperber, and D. Wilson (2012), pp. 1-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2012) Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  30. Travis, Charles
    (2008) Occasion-Sensitivity: Selected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230334.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230334.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wilson, Deirdre , and Tomoko Matsui
    (1998) Recent approaches to bridging: Truth, coherence and relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics10: 173-200. Reprinted in D. Sperber, and D. Wilson (2012), pp. 187-209.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Yus, Francisco
    (1999) Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication. Pragmatics9.4: 487-517.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Zaki, Mai
    (2011) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Demonstratives in English and Arabic. Hendon: Middlesex University [dissertation].
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Accessibility; Demonstratives; Misunderstandings; Obama; Relevance
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error